"The greatest argument against armed struggle is that anti-Treaty-republicanism cannot afford to lose strong political minds to English jails."
Over the last couple of months, a number of former members of Óglaigh na hÉireann
(PIRA) and Sinn Féin have made public statements about the outcome of the struggle they gave much of their lives too. These men were not bit players. After being arrested they served long prison sentences and most returned to the PRM when they were released from prison. They finally left the movement for what they regarded as insurmountable differences with the leadership of Sinn Féin. It's important I point out these differences had nothing to do with the ending of the armed struggle.
All retain their core Irish republican beliefs. Despite all being opposed to the outcome of the Good Friday Agreement they recognise armed struggle has run its course and welcomed the end of the Provos' armed campaign.
The men were mainly interviewed by the News Letter journalist Gemma Murray, which in itself caused an amount of controversy as it's a Unionist newspaper which circulates in the north. However it's what the men say which I wish to comment on.
Whilst the mainstream media mainly concentrated on the men's claim the armed campaigns of today's Republican groups were"futile", with Anthony McIntyre (4) also claiming the Provisional campaign had been defeated, while Richard O'Rawe (1) said it was not “worth one life.”
Tommy McKearney (2) pointed out 'While there was nationalist support and momentum for the Provisional IRA campaign. There is nothing similar today, in fact it is quite the opposite." (ie lack of support for armed dissident groups-MH).
Few could argue logically with this, for the votes cast for Sinn Féin in the six counties do not lie. It's clear within the working class nationalist communities which once formed the bedrock of the PIRA core support - there is still overwhelming support for Sinn Féin and the decision to end the military campaign.
However, I feel to accept this, and then conclude the PIRA were defeated is far too simplistic. Those who were around at the end of the IRA's 'border campaign', which ran between 1956-62, remember much the same sort of talk. In all probability some folk also felt this way in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Rising, and countless other attempts to free Ireland from the British yoke.
Yet within a number of years, depending on the scale of the setback, the freedom baton was passed to another generation who continued the struggle. The 800 year struggle to remove the English crown from Irish affairs has always been a case of two steps forward and one step back; and I can see no reason why the ending of the PIRA campaign should be judged any differently.
It is true, unlike previous generations of armed insurgents, the Provos agreed to allow the British State to oversee the decommissioning of their armaments, something which still cuts deep with former volunteers. Whether the leaders of the PRM gave the British an accurate account of the weapons they held, only they know.
Nevertheless the decommissioning of arms has had a significant impact on how many dissidents feel and think. Not least because the victors of most conventional wars demand it of their vanquished foe.
Why could the army not simply have dumped arms like previous generations of armed Republicans is the question one often hears, and it is difficult to ignore.
Overseeing decommissioning was the quid pro quo the British government demanded of the republican leadership if they wanted the movement's volunteers freed from British prisons. Undoubtedly on this issue they had the Adams leadership by the cojones, for without the release of prisoners they knew they could never sell the Peace Process to their membership.
Nevertheless, despite this unpalatable fact, the corpse of Irish republicanism I do not see.
If we wish to witness a real defeat of a revolutionary movement then look to the Tamil Tigers, leadership, members and core support base smashed into smithereens. Within Sri Lanka what is left of the movement cannot raise its head above the precipice without getting it shot off. It's core support base has been terrorised into submission. Decades of nation building and hard military slog are no more. Open debate about the future for those who survived is not a luxury they possess, let alone any hope of playing a role in their nations affairs. The best most activists can hope for is exile in some foreign land.
Look at Irish republicanism today, from Sinn Féin to Continuity, 32 County through to Éirigí and the IRSP. There are intelligent and at times ferocious debates taking place and as readers to The Pensive Quill, An Phoblacht and other republican outlets like the 1916 Societies can observe, they are not only about picking over the bones of the past.
Today Sinn Féin is a major player in both the north and south of Ireland, and no matter what their dissident critics have proclaimed down the years, it remains as it has always been, an all Ireland, left reformist, nationalist organisation. With its elected public officials living within their constituencies, with little sign of personal wealth beyond the average person they represent.
Few if any of the national liberation movements which exploded onto the world's political stage in the middle of the last century had revolutionary socialist politics at their core. Within most it was bolted on as an afterthought for tactical reasons, and the PRM were no different. Although unlike the ANC and many of these movements, Sinn Féin has not been swept to the right on the neoliberal tide of the last three decades. Despite at times wobbling above the neoliberal precipice, its politics remain what they have always been - left reformist and nationalist.
There has always been a culture of finger pointing in Irish history, and of course it's not unique to Ireland, but when it raises its ugly head it rarely serves any useful purpose. And when political differences turn into personality clashes it plays into perfidious Albion's hands, as they are past masters at stirring this type of pot.
Before history condemns the Provo insurgency as a dismal failure, it's worth looking back to 1969 and asking were there any viable alternative avenues of struggle which would have enabled the nationalist working class peoples of the six counties to get out from under the unionist hammer.
Tommy Gorman (5) one of Sinn Féin most strident critics thinks not:
At the time when I was in the IRA I could not see any alternative.But today even Tommy recognises the ending of the PIRA military campaign has opened avenues of struggle which did not exist when he signed on.
They tried the force of argument and that failed, so they tried the argument of force. At the time I saw no other way.
The dissident campaign had little support in the nationalist/republican community and should be stopped with immediate effect. A group of us have been making this point about dissidents for a long, long time,” he said. “We would prefer they [the dissidents] used any energies they have towards demolishing Sinn Fein’s argumentI tend to agree with Tommy McKearney, one of the more reliable heads on the Irish left, when asked what happened to the Provo's How did they go from militant opponents of British rule to being an integral part of a Stormont administration? He replied:
I have come to view this as part of a dialectic process rather than as an act of dishonesty. Much of the Provos’ momentum came from popular discontent with the old Stormont state rather than a deep desire for an all-Ireland republic and when the ancien regime was abolished and replaced with administration-sharing, allowing Sinn Fein into office, much of the Provo momentum dissipated. However a new set of circumstances demand new responses that can only be answered by a socialist republic and hence the dialectic wheel turns and leaves some behind and others moving on to other areas of struggle.To those republicans who say Sinn Féin should not be within the six country political system and by being there they have sold out, I would ask these questions.
1/ Do the nationalist working class need, and have a right to political representation ?
2/ Whether Republicans should be helping to govern the Stormont administration is more contentious, especially for men and women who spent a good part of their lives trying to smash the British protectorate in the north. But I would pose this question, if SF move aside and either leave the Assembly or become the opposition; how long would it be before the Unionists, with British government collusion, reverted to their old ways?
3/ If this were to happen and the lid blew off, would an armed republican campaign be any more successful than that of the PIRA?
Armed Struggle
Whether armed struggle is a viable option today or at some time in the immediate future, is not for me to say. Although I would add if the Provo's could not achieve their core aim by armed struggle then it is doubtful if the various varieties of armed dissident groups will. At best, even if they managed to unite, which seems doubtful, all they can achieve is propaganda by deed. And if you think it through, to send men and women out to kill and maim for such a paltry return is to display a despicable immorality with other peoples lives.
The more so when it would take building an army from scratch in a hostile climate: when nationalist support for armed struggle does not exist, and the British security services have the means to spy on insurgents which would have been unimaginable during the Provisionals insurgency.
Besides the Red Brigades tried this tactic in 1970s Italy and all they achieved was to allow reactionary forces within the Italian State machine to manipulate to their own advantage the self sacrifice of the young members of Brigate Rosse.
Echoing what Tommy McKearney said; Gerard Hodgins (3) a former PIRA member and hunger striker said this in a recent interview:
The tactics and strategy the armed dissidents are trying to develop are tactics and strategy that we tried, but which failed: the British can deal with these frames of reference. There is also no popular support for armed insurrection and, without a support base, armed insurrection is irresponsible.Just as Hitler could not cower the British people in the Blitz, it must be said the PIRA could not blow the Unionist community into a thirty two county Republic, nor the British army back across the Irish sea. However what they did achieve is prove a generation of Irish people who had the misfortune to be born under British Unionist rule, were no longer prepared to be second class subjects of a foreign monarch. If they had to remain temporarily within the six county British protectorate they would do so as equals of their unionist neighbours.
This might not seem much for those who lack empathy or have never felt the oppressor's heel, but for me it is a considerable feat which has undoubtedly echoed around the world. To turn this David and Goliath struggle into defeat is like saying Spartacus was just one more criminal whom the Romans rightly nailed to a cross. The Haitian revolt led by Toussaint L'Ouverture was just a bunch of uppity workers getting above their station who deserved to be crushed because they failed to understand the natural order of things; and the Warsaw Uprising was nothing more that a group of local corner boys who had nothing better to do.
We know none of this is true, they were all part and parcel of humanities unquenchable thirst for a world in which Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity are more that mere words on Theobold Wolfe Tone's memorial stone.
Of course the British ruling class will chip away at any gains they have been forced to concede: it's what they do. The only question for Republicans today is how best to defend these gains, and move forward to complete the national revolution. Do they continue the struggle in the traditional way with dynamite and bullets, or carve out a new strategy which challenges politically the occupying power at every turn.
The veterans of the Provisional Republican Movement's forged a unified organisation which tenaciously fought a war with the UK state for almost three decades. I refuse to believe it is beyond the ability of these men and women to devise a strategy which learns the lessons of the past and incorporates the democratic avenues which their own struggle released.
It's for them to decide whether they do this as members of Sinn Féin; or if that bridge has been well and truly burned, within a newly created republican organisation, but what I will say is finger pointing is not the way for Irish republicanism to achieve its historic goal.
Mick Hall
-----------------------
The full interviews with the men below and Paul Little, Tony O'Hara and Dominic McGlinchey can be found at The Pensive Quill
(1) Richard O’Rawe: IRA public relations officer in the H-Block during the 1981 hunger strike, shared a cell throughout this period with Bik McFarlane, the IRA prisoners OC. He has written two authoritative books on this subject, Blanketmen; An untold story of the H-Block hunger protest, and After Lives; the hunger strike and the secret offer that changed Irish history. He was amongst the first to publicly point out the lady was for turning.
(2) Tommy McKearney: A former OC the IRA’s Tyrone Brigade. He lived underground from the start of internment in August 1972 until his eventual capture in October 1977. After being imprisoned for life he joined the blanket protest and the first hunger strike, spending 53 days without food. He and his immediate family have paid a very high price in the struggle for a 32 county socialist republic. Today he is a trade union activist and one of Irelands most respected socialists.
(3) Gerard Hodgins, Maze prisoner and Blanket protester, hunger striker and former Sinn Féin press officer, a free spirit who tells it as he sees it. Admired for his honesty.
(4) Anthony McIntyre, former volunteer, sentenced to 18 years for IRA activity, on the Blanket for 4 years, co edited the Blanket e-magazine, writer and journalist who blogs at the Pensive Quill
(5) Tommy Gorman; A senior member of the PIRA engineering department, interned twice, in the Crumlin Road jail and on the Maidstone prison ship in Belfast Lough. He was one of the Magnificent Seven who escaped from the Maidstone prison hulk. Eventually he was rearrested and charged with possession of ammunition and explosives and was released in 1986.
With the greatest respect to Mick and here I,d like to say much of his post I would agree with ,however.."with elected public officials living within their constituencies with little sign of personal wealth beyond the average person they represent " for fuck sake Mick did Gorbels Gibney write this piece for you a cara , quisling $inn £eind and the average industrial wage is a joke here,from Armalite to Armani is the new war cry, have you seen the houses the well heeled live in around Belfast and believe me when I tell you that the president for life,s Dun Na Gall pad is the last word as is Maskeys,brand new holiday home just outside Falcarragh, they all have new homes on the Hannastown Hill which is nicknamed "Provie Heights" due to the number of good fellows who live there, Spike Murrays property ,portfolio grows by the minute,Bob doh Brains and Martybroy Lynch and P O Neill all have super big houses in Owenvarragh pk in the heart of Andytown in the shadow of Casement park and not a fucking days works between the lot of them, quisling $inn £eind led the people by lying they survive by lying but the old saying that you cant fool all the people all the time will come true for these carpetbaggers, the debate on the future of republicanism must go on,the failed tactics of the past must be left there especially the fucking lying,quisling $inn £eind are having their moment in the sun now ,they do so because Whitehall says they are still useful, how long will that last, well if militant republicanism changes tact and confronts these wasters on their public performance and in a democratic fashion then I think those wasters will soon be giving the boot they badly deserve .
ReplyDeleteAgree with Marty, there was much in that article which challenges our interpretation of the political situation but to exonerate the Sinn Fein leadership from the charges of corruption and nepotism that follow it like a bad smell is a mistake. For ordinary Councillors and MLAs this is usually the case but at the top of the greasy poll we have those with massive property portfolios and huge bank accounts begotten on the backs of the republican struggle. Even the new Councils, there's a proviso that sitting Councillors can step aside for a generous redundancy packet but where will this money go? By right it should be returned to the republican struggle but we all know that's not going to happen. I'm not saying people shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts, that's fine, but admit to it and stop pretending the situation is anything otherwise - admit you're just a regular political party with paid positions and people there for a career. Stop the bullshit pretence that this is the Provo campaign continued through political methods because quite clearly that's not the case and what the party now represents is light years away from what the Provisionals were about. Nowhere can this be more clearly seen than in the character of many now climbing the rungs of internal party structures who would have been SDLP only 20 years ago. Other than that it was a very worthwhile take on the current debate and something we can use to further the discussion - sorry that I haven't done so at this point
ReplyDeleteSurely it is an illusion that there was some quid pro quo over prisoner releases in return for weapons destruction, in that it was in the interest of the British to get them out of jail too, lest there cells became a modern analog to how Pearse described Fenian graves. It suits both sides to pretend otherwise. I would point out political representation is only of value if your vote is to those who write your laws, ensure your security and raise your taxes. Anything less than this is not political representation. Finger pointing wouldn’t of been necessary if they Provisional leadership just walked away from the war, changed their their minds and joined the SDLP, it happens. They didn’t do that, the assimilated into the state, becoming another armed wing which sought to destroy any budding movement carrying on the armed campaign. They retrospectively delegitimized the war by stating they were pursuing an equality agenda all along. What would happen today if a black person was (even potentially) denied a job on the basis of his skin colour, or a Catholic on the basis of religion? They could pursue their discrimination case in a national or supranational court. This was all coming anyway, it was inevitable with or without the Provisionals campaign, its not something a war needed to be fought over. National liberation was.
ReplyDeleteMick Hall-
ReplyDeleteSome fair comments for us all to ingest-
" Gerard Hodgins was in the Irish news yesterday-( Monday )-saying that nobody has a strategy for challenging Sinn Fein-he said nothing about challenging the Brits-
" if they wanted the movements Volunteers freed from British prisons "-
The Volunteers were freed years before the decommissioning act in which the Brits never received a bullet nor a ounce-another promise kept -
" look at the Tamil Tigers "
That last shoot out on that beach was unreal- but if it was not for that massive Tusnami that wiped out a lot of the Tigers defences that final battle could not have happened-it was an act of God which saw their defeat-hope God still loves us-
bang on the money Marty. nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteSean
ReplyDeleteYou say today's Sinn Féin is light years away from what the Provos were about, I would challenge that and say it is light years away from what some people, including members, thought the Provos were about.
Going back I remember at Sinn Féin annual conferences contributions to a debate about a woman's right to choose, and on other issues which were in the dark ages.
It did not happen by chance one of the movements lead supporters in the USA was a right wing republican, admittedly others were on the revolutionary left, but that is my point, it was how liberation movements operated back then.
My point is the PRM is and always has been a left reformist nationalist organisation. It seems to me today the main thrust of Adams is to portray Sinn Féin as a regular political party with paid positions and in which people can have a career. By the way it is possible to have a paid position in a party, or a trade union come to that, without being a turn coat, even a socialist party needs full timers.
It is pretty clear why ambitious middle class people might join SF today instead of the SDLP, surely? The real question for Adams and the leadership is to make sure these types do not come to dominate the party.
The fact the class make up of SF it overwhelmingly working class is unique almost anywhere in Western Europe and is something of value. I remember when Mary Lou McDonald joined and was fast tracked, there was a lot of talk about middle class incomers taking control, it did not happen. Well not yet;)
DaithiD
To suggest the Provisional leadership should just have walked away from the war, changed their their minds and joined the SDLP was never an option, leaving aside it would have been a negation of leadership, are you really suggesting back in those days the SDLP would have given house room to a lowly member of SF, let alone the leadership.
Marty
I am not here to defend corrupt leaderships of any party, but while the houses in Owenvarragh park are much bigger than my own two bedroom terrace they are far from the homes of the wealthy price wise, or come to it those of British MP's.
It does not make it right but my point was about ordinary Councillors, TD's and MLAs across the whole of Ireland.
At the end of the piece I set out two options, people can either stay with SF, or build a new united republican front which as you write" confronts these wasters on their public performance and in a democratic fashion" (although I might not use your words)
The whole problem has been in recent years there has been no viable radical republican socialist opposition which has challenged SF in the democratic arena. At best there have been protest movements like Éirigí.
It is the same over here with the British LP, if there were a strong left party, out of self interest it would drag the LP leftwards. The absence of this means the reactionary parties which make up the coalition are able to bring pressure on Labour to move to the right.
Sadly such behavior is the weakness of social democracy, it blows with the prevailing political winds of the day.
Good read and excellent posts in response.
ReplyDelete"At best, even if they managed to unite, which seems doubtful, all they can achieve is propaganda by deed. And if you think it through, to send men and women out to kill and maim for such a paltry return is to display a despicable immorality with other peoples lives".
But SF today continue shamelessly to surf the political wave created by 3000 deaths. A wave they became obsessed the SDLP would not benefit from. Had the OIRA been permitted to build working class politics and accept partition and participate in Stormont would it really have been impossible for unionism to relax things over a 30 year period? Would the OIRA have been any more toothless than SF? How much more has been achieved by the conflict and was it done any quicker?
Certainly there were a lot of angry young men desperate for a fight and to serve it up to the prods, no shortage. Of course from a historical analysis from the Fenians to the Rising on to the Border Campaign and until internment and Bloody Sunday militant nationalism/republicanism rarely had any petrol in the tank but could always count on the Brits lighting the fumes. SF are the buffer against that today.
It is 2013 and any gains that have been made were not made by political genius in the form of the SF leadership. They were proven to be 'slow-learners'; opportunists with British media hype setting informers/agents on political pedestals in the nationalist community. GB is a past master at that, all too easy. The requirement is to move on and attempt to stop looking back. People are too determined to live in the 3rd conditional, 'if only' the Titanic hadn't hit the iceberg it wouldn't have sunk. Or (for you Marty) if yer granny had balls....
The local political scene is the same as elsewhere, akin to a closed shop. Difficult to enter. The republican hunger-strike wave of sympathy has been transformed into an opportunist gravy train, a very lucrative way-out for the SF leadership that was willingly grasped and consolidated by a tired and fatigued electorate. Anyone who wasn't interested in becoming a Michael-Henry (hooray-henry) deliberately decided not to board that gravy train. I salute them!
As said already, it's 2013 not 1798. The reality is there is as much likelihood of a two state Ireland with Irish/nationalist majorities in both, rather than a 32 county republic. Once given a fair shout and with unionist bigotry neutered/out voted, I'd not count my chickens in any border poll.
The sad thing is the SF leadership, rotten to the core for decades, set out to kill off republicanism forever, and sadder still, they seem to have been left unscathed in their achieving their mission.
referendum.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/britons-bemused-by-thai-voting-fuss-2014020383175
ReplyDeleteTo call Sinn Fein a left party I believe is a wrong analysis.
ReplyDeleteTheir houses in Owenvarragh may not be what you think of as extravagant but how about their second and third houses in Donegal, Portugal, Spain, France etc.? are they more extravagant than your second or third house?
Thanks OrganisedRage, I didn’t think it was that objectionable but I can only infer from what happened since that if Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness told Hume et al everything they planned to renounce for as little as what was gained then accommodation for them would of been made in the interest of peace, its not as absurd as what has actually transpired since (Chuckle brothers). Im not saying the Provisional leadership should of walked away from the war, im pointing out they did. I make no judgement on that aspect either, they can make their own decisions. It was never in their gift to deliver Republicanism unto to British state though.
ReplyDeleteMick a cara there was a saying in the republican movement which we were proud of and the was "its a grass roots led movement"with hindsight we now know that this was just a myth another fucking con job,I to attended many Ard Fheis and again we know now that the party was all things to all men /women,the likes of Martybroy O Millionaire who slithered along with others hovering always in the limelight but never to close to the flame,the heavy lifting as always was done mostly by the plebs, again with hindsight I for one can see that the party was more and more looking at those with a degree to their name, now in the sense that education is a must and that those who came through the mill like Anthony ,Tommy Mc Kearney Tommy Gorman etc and acquired their degrees must be congratulated and its not these people I cast my scornful eye upon, there seems to be within the hierarchy of quisling $inn £eind a determination to distance itself from those who did the heavy lifting as much as possible and promote the uni educated bright young things with clean hands as if that will somehow decontaminate the party from its past, quisling $inn £eind to me Mick is imo the classic con trick all smoke and mirrors and about as fuckin believable.as for the homes in Owenvarragh Pk well Mick you have to remember these are just their Belfast ones ,
ReplyDeletethought mick's article very fair. will say though that rep movement was LIED TO AND LEAD in a different direction as opposed to just going in a different direction. a message to the militants - mental terrorism is the only way forward. blow mind not bodies comrades. proxy bombs and extortion are so passe.
ReplyDeleteGrouch if ya wanna blow minds smoke dynamite.
ReplyDeletei decommissioned the dynamite marty, wish i could decommission the amber leaf, lungs are a bomb site now im afraid
ReplyDeleteSinn Fein a left wing party , not a chance , a drive through South Armagh and you will soon see the rewards that they treated themselves too .
ReplyDeleteAnd how come Saint Gerry was able to get his arse repaired in a private clinic in America a place were only the rich and powerful can go for medical help ,
And as for the claptrap about the average industrial wage , were does the monies that are left over go , I can bet that it doesn’t go back to poor , I would love them to answer that question
Boyne Rover,
ReplyDeleteAnd how come Saint Gerry was able to get his arse repaired in a private clinic in America
Leave Tom Hartley out of it
ReplyDeleteIt was never my intention to have the reason why his arse became so tender that it caused him to use his capitalist friends openly aired on the Quill ,for that I am sorry
But I didn’t think it that Hartley I was convinced it was the Irish News columnist that caused him most of the wear and tear on his arse
The Provisional campaign was not for a reformed power-sharing Stormont with equal rights for the minority community in the six-counties
ReplyDeleteboyne rover, the reason Adams can go to a private clinic is he's a typical self serving, lying wannabe elitist. he stoops any lower he'll get a knighthood.
ReplyDeleteIf talks where to take place with anti agreement republicans the issue of p.o.ws would obviously arise are there any suggestions as to how this would be dealt with.i don't believe talks can be successful without there input.
ReplyDeleteSean Bres
ReplyDeleteFrom the decision of '86 to accept one partitionist assembly it was only a short matter of time and a tiny step for the Provisionals to move into Stormont. That some of the rank and file couldn't see it, so be it.
(AM) Metaphorically there's more than Adams with a sore hole; I'm thinking of those that blindly followed him after '86, swallowed his lies day after day, month after month, year on year up to the Good Friday Surrender who were repeatedly and truly buggered and screwed.
And yet there are some (one of them comments here regularly) that'd give him a blow-job if he said it was for the party or the 'cause'.
Mother of God! Hail holy Saint Patrick, pray for us!
David Higgins
ReplyDeleteAnd after he and marty pulled the piss-process off, they'd both feel safe enough to accept a knighthood.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHenry Joy I think it's fair to say what has transpired since '86 amounts to an ideological abberation but let's keep in mind that the Provisionals set out their goals long before then
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Sean Bres but I disagree with your interpretation.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in '86 was certainly not an aberration, it was a defined and permanent change of direction which ran counter to previous expressed ideology (deceitfully denied at the time, and sustained by lying there after) which ultimately lead to capitulation by the Provisionals.
Fianna Fáil had goals, the Officials had goals and the Provisionals had goals too.
Seems to me as an Irish republican their achievements were nothing more than own-goals in ideological terms?
Yeah agreed - what followed from 1986 was an aberration of republican ideology as traditionally understood and a move away from the Provisional project, brought about by a deceitful leadership who were able to con the majority of the movement who remained under their banner. The thing is though neither the army or the party fully realised or understood where this was headed, with an armed insurgency raging they took Adams and McGuinness at their word that the war would continue until the British declared an intent to withdraw. They were manipulated and deceived, indeed many are only realising now the extent of it. For the vast majority of those who took up the struggle through involvement in the Provisional movement the goals they set out to achieve are nowhere to be found in terms of what Sinn Fein represents today and that's the point I make. That the process resulting in this originated in the Mansion House decision I make no argument otherwise
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSean agus Henry Joy a cairde its easy to see how the movement was deceived all one has to do is read back over the speeches from Mc Guinness especially from that period, he after all was the one most volunteers put their trust in,and believed,and as we now know this man who I believe to be a tout aided and abetted by Adams and scriptwriters from downing st shunted the movement into a cul de sac,some of us seen it coming others who let loyalty cloud their judgement took longer,but I make no apology in stating that what remains in that party now are nothing more than quisling carpetbaggers,and I for one would never trust any of them ever again,so as far as sitting in a room with them ,their hand of friendship is like Brutus,s love for Caesar and as deadly.
ReplyDeleteDaithi D,
ReplyDeletethere is a certain disadvantage that the type of strategic argument you seek to make suffers from: that is the more it is argued the greater the chance of the state jailing those who express the view. The people who oppose that view don't labour under that threat.
So, to anyone who does feel that armed campaigns have a role be very careful what you say on this blog or any other. We will of course carry your views but nobody should allow the state to trace anything back to them that could lead to their imprisonment.
Am I right here or is it too alarmist?
Thanks Anthony, Im glad you did point this out. I should add campaigns can be both political and armed, and I hope that nuance carries across in anything I have written elsewhere too.*innocent face*
ReplyDeleteDaithi I fully concur that we need a campaign - however small - at this time, if only to keep things ticking over. The conversation however needs to be about how any such campaign should be organised and what methods should be employed in the context of current realities, both in terms of political strength and the strategic balance of military forces. The 'Long War' concept was designed as a military tactic not a principle - indeed it can rightly be argued it was used, alongside the shafting of Eire Nua, as a device for initiating the leadership coup that eventually, as Marty says, shunted the movement down a dead-end. Let's bear that in mind when talking about campaigns. For me republicanism at this time is better served mounting a campaign to educate a new generation of political activists and to put in place structures that can harness and encourage the emerging talent-pool on to greater things - to regenerate the movement and place it in a position where it once again holds the capacity to shape meaningful change. Republicanism can survive without resorting to a variant of the Long War strategy and if basic survival is held to be the goal for now then any notion of a campaign built around such a concept should be set to the side
ReplyDeleteHenry Joy
ReplyDelete"Fianna Fáil had goals, the Officials had goals and the Provisionals had goals too.
Seems to me as an Irish republican their achievements were nothing more than own-goals in ideological terms"?
A eureka moment!! Politicians had career ambitions and volunteers had ambitions to remain at liberty and alive as well as being effective. After each phase of the conflict the careerists 'moved
on' with lowered political aspirations and higher personal ambitions. The rest were collateral damage and the careerists barely glanced back over their shoulder. If they did it was usually to intern or execute former comrades. Usually arms were dumped and political aims lowered. SF broke the mould by destroying arms and dumping political aims.
Yep from Volunteers to electioneers....SF agogo.
But at the end of the day, amid all the lamenting, are the present republicans not espousing the electioneer agenda? What's it all about? I can't work out if it's a case of regretting missing the SF gravy train or regretting having been born too late for the 'war' with quite a few out there today. It's all going to end up in Stormont if there is yet another successful electoral party so why the angst? Whoever is 'in' will have an allocated budget and a list of three options on any given issue from civil serpents. One of the options will be ridiculous, the 2nd will be dodgy and the 3rd will be feasible. Presto, THAT'S who runs the country. Collect your expenses on the way out and fuck-off back to your ghetto.
So again, if republicans are 'struggling' (excuse me I near choked on me coffee there) for a principled alternative, when you finally get to Stormont there wont be any principles, there'll be civil serpents and a UK budget allocation. As emphasised by Free State politicians who are quick to expose SF in the south now to the reality of political life in the north whilst criticising the Free State parties for doing the same thing in Dublin as they are doing in Stormont. Lest we forget, most of them are teachers or cute hoor salesmen, not revolutionaries or financial wizards. I know Pearse Doherty has read 'economics for dummies' but that's the exception. So civil serpents go unquestioned.
QUESTION....why bother your arse?
It's understandable and forgiveable Sean Bres that the majority followed Adams and McGuinness. Both had reputations as uncompromising commanders and politicians; hadn't they been trenchant in their opposition to 'Éire Nua' as a sop to Unionism too!
ReplyDeleteMore decisively they had such a stockpile of arms and munitions, that would allow the war to continue indefinitely, it made it very difficult for those who saw merit in O'Brádaigh's warnings not to stay with the Provisionals.
Given where we now find ourselves, isn't it all the more reason now to follow principles rather than personalities, all the more reason to challenge, and question the motives of those, who propose diversion from established ideologies, all the more reason to acknowledge those who held true to those principles?
I feel Sean may have a point, once the leadership fell completely into the hands of the northerners, settling orange state issue became the priority. It may not have appeared as blunt edged as that, but the facts speak loud and clear.
ReplyDeleteWhile ending abstention may have played a role I doubt it was the overriding factor. Besides as the northerners were doing the heavy lifting the rise of Adams and co was almost inevitable.
Nevertheless we are still where we are
Save all the hassle of a 'long march' to where republicans ALWAYS end up; constitutionalism. All those in Derry there's a wee guy up there standing for the SDLP called Emmet Doyle, a fresh face with fresh energy. You could do worse than vote for Emmet. He isn't pretending to be a 'RA man!
ReplyDeleteIf you're angry with SF..... VOTE EM OUT!!
Larry
ReplyDeleteStrangely enough I was recommending a similar strategy to my Ma on a brief family visit (vote SDLP).
Couldn't disagree more with that Lar unless there's a heavy sprinkling of sarcasm in all that. Yeah we can see that electoralism leads to constitutionalism so the correct position to take would be we need alternative strategies. Elections for republicans were considered more for purposes of tactical intervention on a periodic basis as opposed to being out-and-out policy, but as with so many other aspects of republicanism Adams, Morrisson and their ilk stood this on its head in pursuit of their OWN agenda. Another lesson we should learn from that leadership and its failures. The first thing republicanism needs to do is take a step back and survey the terrain, recognise it for what it is then return to our communities to start rebuilding the core strength we will require if we're ever to become a serious force again. Sinn Fein are steady now baiting the likes of myself to stand in their elections to prove our worth so that tells you in who's interest it is for republicans to pursue this path - theirs. It's time to regroup, not to head down another road that can only lead to certain failure. But perhaps that's what you meant anyway, I'd safely say it is
ReplyDeleteHenry joy + Sean
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me republicans left adrift, confused and fragmented could do a lot worse than simply voting for the party SF did the 'Judas' on them all to emulate and overtake in constitutional politics, the SDLP. Decades will be spent trying to create a 'new' republicanism Sean, which few see as new at all but rather an inability to move on. Talk of tactics and strategy is merely a thinly disguised lament at the demise of military activity. Coupled with the acceptance that the 'new' approach when eventually formulated will be electoral based, what is it all about?
Cut to the chase, vote SDLP and slap SF back in the face in kind. Vote for the party that Marty and Gerry were desperate to become!!
Can I just add, the likes of young Emmet Doyle in Derry who I'm delighted to say I know personally are very dynamic young men and women who are not johnny come lately phoneys nor are they trying to be something they never were. They are actively engaged in their local communities and making a difference already. So in the shorter term why not VOTE FOR THE REAL THING.
ReplyDeleteVOTE SDLP....dent the electoral careerism of the SF touts and agents wrapped in the green flag.
Larry, your right in the sense that tweedle dee and tweedle dum, are emulating the party they mocked, and its an interesting tactic and certainly would be a slap for s.f.. But in all honesty i can't see how a vote for s.d.l.p would do any good i am aware that there has to be an alternative to p.s.f but the s.d.l.p are and always have been a shower of spineless bastards.
ReplyDeleteTweedledum and Tweedledee? Leave out the insults
ReplyDeleteDavid
ReplyDeletewas just addressing the obsession with SF. Best to accept that 'constituency' is gone. Better perhaps to put the SDLP back into constitutional primacy and make Adams McGuinness career adventure futile rather than talking endlessly about building republicanism for the future. (is that not just code for the next campaign?) That is keeping the SF gravy train at full tilt. It's a SF dream ticket, dissident rumblings.
by voting SDLP people could make the SF project defunct.
The problem is the next generation coming through will be the first to have been born into the new constitutional arrangements and brought up witnessing republican participation in them - North and South. A lot has changed and we need to recognise it and be proactive in our efforts to address new realities. If we were just to leave it to another generation without providing the necessary encouragement the status quo may well become the accepted norm. This is British strategy. No matter what we have to address our problems and seek to move forward in a positive manner while preserving the honour and integrity of our struggle and our movement.
ReplyDeleteWe need to frame our struggle so that it connects with the individual and from there involve them in our movement where possible - at whatever level they are willing to work. We need to offer a progressive vision of the future framed around traditional concepts of freedom, justice and peace. That is the path for me but it's all to be worked out. We can only do that as we go along, there is no magic formula.
All we can do is put the information out there, those who choose to hear will hear and over time we will have an impact hopefully. It has to come from within each person for it to work, it can't be forced on anyone. That's a big challenge for us but chip away is all we can do.
We will see. I think we're all the way back to where we where post the Border Campaign - probably worse off actually given that the army has been disbanded for the first time in our history. Adams has a lot to answer for. Sinn Fein will go on from here and gain power within the establishment no doubt while we are left behind but we've been in this situation before. You just can't tell what's round the corner but republicanism has been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the British - though not a mortal one. The work lies ahead and the legacy of those who went before us demands we make a start on it. It's vital that we learn from history and for that reason if no other then education and debate is going to be a big thing moving forward
Sean Bres
ReplyDelete'Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Leave out the insults'
pretty sure that was a reference to Marty and Gerry.
But upon reflection, a attempted re-run of SF is all I see republicans achieving, and a very poor imitation at that. SF are an imitation of the SDLP and republicans want to do yet another circuit of the same futile republican coarse. FF WP SF....
I honestly think an RC majority in the north that treats the unionists as equals without even thinking on the matter is where it's going to end up. With strong ties to Dublin. There's you 'Eire Nua' of sorts.
Larry
ReplyDeletei just feel a protest vote is no good, your as well with no vote at all then we could highlight the poor turnouts, that,s my opinion a cara
sean bres, your right all you can do is chip away, debate is paramount and this site offer a fantastic opportunity to do so. Although if am being honest i think i am addicted i am checking this site every half hour its becoming a problem
Larry
ReplyDeletejust read you comment there, tweedledee and tweedledum was a reference to Marty and Gerry
sean bres, i missed your comment, i'll reply now sorry if i offended you, its good to know Adams has someone to defend his honour he'll need it
Larry,
ReplyDeleteAlthough it would be a good laugh it would be the downfall of the SDLP as they wouldn’t know what to do considering SF are newcomers to the arena we would think they should have been out in front instead of being barely a dot on the political page.
The advantage for pushing for an alternative is realistic as there are a lot of decent folk who don’t suffer from the common disease of our politicians’ corruption and entrenchment.
The more discussion and debate that takes place might actually go somewhere and along the way might convince the militants that Oliver’s army is here to stay.
Saving us from part two of the war that comes with the spoiler alert the Brits win in the end again.
There are plenty of anti-treaty-republicans who oppose the militants who would prefer to see a political party form to give a voice.
More importantly it would be a testing ground to see if they can compete with SF rather than just be critical of them.
One thing is for sure without a party it leaves some no option but to support the militants as even though they do little for some that is better than doing nothing.
"probably worse off actually given that the army has been disbanded for the first time in our history"
ReplyDeleteNot accurate Sean Bres.
"republicanism has been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the British"
Not accurate Sean Bres.
Picked that up wrong David, thought you were referring to myself and Henry Joy so apologies. HJ tell me how that's not accurate, explain your comment
ReplyDeleteTain Bo
ReplyDelete'More importantly it would be a testing ground to see if they can compete with SF rather than just be critical of them'.
So the best to hope for is a couple of people elected who will be so vocally republican and determined to expose SF in councils or Stormont they will sound like the Taliban DUP on the taig side. Or spend their entire time telling the council how SF are the dissidents. They will still be isolated as mere spectators whilst the rest lap up the gravy for nothing more than rubber stamping N.I. civil service directives. That's the reality of 'democratic politics'. Of course republicans may have a different agenda, ie. awaiting some ugly event to give cover for violence? Maybe people are voting SF because they are happy that has gone away you know! Republicans don't have a support base politically and with them being totally ineffective/incompetent militarily they should wrap it up. I have no doubt if they were successful militarily they'd not worry about a mandate, and we wouldn't be having this debate but they are falling flat on all fronts and it's totally counter productive. That's not an insult Sean Bres, just a reality check. The continued thrashing about trying to resuscitate a not only dead horse but a decaying one, only bellows the SF fires in the elections.
No different here in the South. The independents are making little headway and to be honest I think most of them will be gone next time out. They better get a second house fast and milk the expenses at a rate of knots. It will be back to civil war battle-lines at next election. FF will likely be back in business. The IMF thing will be sorted sufficiently for them to milk Europe again like the prodigal son returned after supping his medicine. And so it continues.
Sean bres, no problem I scrolled up and know how you got your wires crossed, I should've been a bit clearer.
ReplyDeleteHJ, I am going to have to agree with Sean we did face a strategic defeat by the Brits, coerced by our own leadership, but still.
Sean Bres
ReplyDeleteI will deal with the points in reverse order;
"republicanism has been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the British"
That the Provisionals politically and militarily capitulated is not necessarily equal to republicanism having been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the Brits.
Ok republicanism is definitely on the floor, maybe it is a decaying horse as Larry suggests but that's not my contention.
That the Provisional military campaign was defeated by the Brits is inaccurate. The Provisional military wing had capacity right to the very end, even despite some well placed spies in their ranks; as evidenced by the City of London bomb alone.
If the Brits can claim any militarily success it was by proxy through direction and control of Loyalist murder gangs. Once they began to direct the attacks by the Loyalists onto more prominent middle and professional class nationalist rather than unemployed catholics they created such tension within those sections of the community that Hume was forced to attempt to rein in the Provisionals. That of course suited the Provisional leaderships' declared electoral ambitions and that leadership steered the movement away from military engagement.
So rather than republicanism having been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the Brits Sean, republicanism was abandoned in '86 by the Provisionals who then misled their volunteers, members and supporter down a path which eventually led to Stormont and participation in the administration and implementation of British colonial rule.
Your other statement that I questioned the accuracy of Sean;
"probably worse off actually given that the army has been disbanded for the first time in our history"
They tell us that the Provisional Movement's Military wing has been disbanded and maybe it has but if there were to be some dastardly act by parties known or unknown would anyone be surprised at a re-emergence of Provisional enforcers, sure they may sail under some other flag of convenience, but we'd all know then whether they have or haven't gone away.
That said Sean, and we may have to agree to disagree on this, since '86 the army you reference was the military wing of the Provisionals but not Óglaigh na hÉireann.
Importantly and finally nothing above is said to demean the courage and sacrifices of those, acting in good faith on behalf of the Irish Republic, who were deceived and misled post '86
Nowhere have I ever stated the IRA was defeated, that's certainly not how I view the situation - far from it. But if you're trying to tell me republicanism has not suffered a massive strategic set-back given the current state of the struggle then I don't know on what you base your analysis. In terms of your final comment I apologise if this comes across as dismissive or insulting but the suggestion that the army somehow stopped being the army is revisionist, wishful thinking and the fanciful claims those like yourself seek to make that this spurious 'other' Oglaigh na hEireann you present to us has done anything other than besmirch the republic is simply risible and nothing else in the context of what their 'campaign' amounted to - as can be seen in the activities of the likes of the Limerick outfit and Geraldine Taylor's shenanigans. No wonder the people want fuck all to do with it. The RSF claim to the republic doesn't wash any longer, the opportunity it had to build something credible on that claim and on the back of the disastrous peace process which surely bolstered it was destroyed from within. That ship has sailed so let's get real, let's not even pretend it was ever somehow otherwise. 1986 was important for many, many reasons but let's not abuse and mis-use it and the lessons to be learned from it in a laughable attempt to re-write history. As I said sorry for any offence which is not the motive behind my comment in any way
ReplyDeleteRSF like the rest of us has a lot to offer as we rebuild so that was certainly not to dismiss this worthwhile, proud organisation. But as I said previously the monotheistic theocratic claim to the republican movement and struggle are untenable given the party's and its associates' own unfortunate history. It's time we all got real and started building anew together
ReplyDeleteNo Sean Bres you didn't state that the IRA were defeated and I didn't say that you did. I quoted you directly;
ReplyDelete"republicanism has been dealt a devastating strategic defeat by the British" your exact words. I felt that was somewhat inaccurate and expressed my view.
You then went on to say;
"But if you're trying to tell me republicanism has not suffered a massive strategic set-back given the current state of the struggle then I don't know on what you base your analysis."
You seemed to have missed part of my post,
"Ok republicanism is definitely on the floor, maybe it is a decaying horse as Larry suggests but that's not my contention." my exact words, republicanism is on the floor, that is more or less the same as what you're accusing me of trying to deny!
It'd be too much like remedial work to go on any further with this but can I suggest Sean when you read something that doesn't fit with your view of the world, perhaps you might consider stopping, counting to ten, taking a few deep breaths and read the post again.
In my post I offered my interpretation and opinion as to how events unfolded, it's not necessary to agree with all of what I say Sean, indeed it's not even necessary to agree with anything I say. Just my tuppence worth. I've said what I said and I stand over it.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYou make a sound argument for continued armed struggle with your curl up and politically die assessment.
The notion that it is impossible sounds like the British bull dog has bitten us so hard we should be happy to sit and lick our wounds.
Your argument seems to be that of the hopeless insisting that it is much better to concede and become spectators rather than attempt building an alternative party.
That would be the rhetoric of SF and the unionists who are content to feed the divisions and even more content that anti-treaty-republicans remain voiceless.
To simply dead end it only leaves anti-treaty-republicans with one option and that is simply to lend support to militant republicanism.
It sounds foolish to rubbish the idea of moving into mainstream politics and then rubbishing the militants at the same time that leaves a portion of the people without representation and only enhances the strangle hold of SF politics.
Take a deep breath and count to ten? Yeah right. Your comments were highly suggestive and were dealt with accordingly, I leave the readers to decide on their consistency but they don't wash with me. I've no interest in taking this further, you're now agreeing with what I said anyway and I've no interest in a slanging match with a faceless avatar for those who hope to discredit the Irish Republican Army out of spite and historical enmity
ReplyDeleteTain Bo
ReplyDeleteYou are 100%
I said if the IRA (any 1 of about 5 just now) were effective and operating chances are we wouldn't be having the debate. The anti treaty republicans would be in their element.
Also in relation to constitutional politics; the fact is republicans have a history of ending up there regardless of the duration of abstention or the length of the scenic route they take to arrive at destination failure. Anti treaty republicans are already insisting on democratic electoral participation so SF has consolidated electioneering as a 'given' necessity already. So no one is politically pre 1986 are they? Maybe some people just need a hobby? OR A POTENTIAL FUTURE CAREER?
For me republicanism was never about a political career. It was about fighting injustice and Ulster Nazism. A 32 county socialist republic was something people like Adams and McGuinness could wax lyrical about. Personally I believed that was all oul gunk for the political 'optics'. Was I correct? Have a wee feeling I was!
Not much point getting excited or upset when politicos turn out to be Judas turds. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt? SF are doing what politicians do, lining their pockets. But I am very surprised and to an extent dismayed that some of the 'heads' I knew back in the day let the turds away scot free. THAT has surprised me. But it is what it is.
At 50 yrs of age all I can say is VOTAIL SDLP.
Sean Bres says,
ReplyDelete" Your comments were highly suggestive and were dealt with accordingly"
That's got a familiar ring to it Sean. It seems to me you can take the man out of the Provo's but you can't take the Provo out of the man!
You assume a lot from my contributions Sean, you assume meaning that is not actually there in my written words, you assume motivation as to my intent also which runs contrary to my words,
"Importantly......... nothing above is said to demean the courage and sacrifices of those, acting in good faith on behalf of the Irish Republic, who were deceived and misled post '86"
Of course you're entitled to make assumptions Sean but as the school master used to say, "Assume if you wish, but remember assUme makes an Ass out of U and out of me."
Drop your assumptions Sean Bres, read my comments, challenge the substantive if you're so inclined but do yourself and the rest of us a favour and drop your rants.
Where do you begin with that hi! Having read over your comments I see no reason whatsoever to change tact and stand over my comments. But what I will say is that one minute you're preaching about the republic and others dissociating from it then the next your recommended strategy is - wait for it (and I quote directly) - to 'vote SDLP'. You couldn't dream this shit up. I said from the beginning there was no intention on my part to cause offence so let's just knock this on the head, I've no interest in a personal battle with a faceless moniker
ReplyDeleteSean Bres
ReplyDeleteDo you not see any merit in a tactical vote for the SDLP in the absence of any alternative to SF? Temporary slap to SF by voting for the very party they ditched everything and everyone to emulate and become.
As Oliver North said, It's a 'neat plan'.
Young Hughes all I can say on that score is it's worse you're getting
ReplyDeleteI like you Sean Bres have no interest in a personal battle. Though like you, I am open to frank exchanges and robust debate.
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion it beholds those of us who calls ourselves republicans to tolerate dissenting voices even and especially where controversial issues exist. To the degree I've personalised my comments I apologise.
Back to substantive issues; Like Larry I see merit in voting tactically for the SDLP where no republican/socialist candidate is on the ballot paper and where such candidates do exist I'd encourage anti-treaty republicans to continue their preferences then to SDLP candidates. I'm not in agreement with David Higgins' opinion when he suggests that we abstain from voting, we spent to long waiting and campaigning for one man, one woman, one vote to voluntarily decommission that too.
As you've pointed out in an earlier post Sean Bres (5.42PM Feb 5th) republicans have never avoiding using electoral situations as a temporary tactic so I don't see why not vote SDLP (indeed anything other than Provisional SF).
Larry,
ReplyDeleteCiting Oliver North hardly enhances your temporary tactical slap the man was a diehard Reaganite not to mention the nice theatrical act of the Iran/Contra affair.
The pipe dream of a united Ireland is nowhere on the political map and the militants can holdout on that ethos alone but the reality of that it is not a philosophy but merely a notion.
Why stop at the SDLP why not just promote vote anyone but SF the problem with that is SF are politically strong enough to take a digging not to mention anti-treaty-republicans would become a laughing stock, a political joke.
The policy of not voting works out better as neither the SDLP nor SF has the guts to challenge the British government simply as they are the government.
The focus should shift to building a political front obviously the militant front is not working.
If they linger around long enough then we shall see the GFA pat two.
I fully concur with Tain Bo's comments and anyone preaching the merits of voting SDLP has a very short memory
ReplyDeleteHappiness is health and a short memory Sean.
ReplyDeleteSean Bres
ReplyDeletehardly a short memory having cited how republicanism always ends up in the pigs-trough of constitutional career politics. FF WP SF etc...
What you are contemplating is a long haul of laying the groundwork for another generation some time in the future to 'finish the job'.
That will entail all that has already been done before many times over and then personal careers for some on the back of it. Nothing more.
Not me with the short memory Sean sad to say, it's republican 'groundhog-day'.
Vote SDLP. Put your feet up in front of the fire and watch Liverpool v Arsenal.
Larry,
ReplyDelete“Vote SDLP” that is if you remember to vote after all there might be an all important football match on the box.
Isn’t that just a defeatist copout republicans all end up in the constitutional “careerist politics?”
Your solution prop up one side of the careerists and introduce a seesaw voting system of we are beat so vote SDLP.
Then what, we don’t like the SDLP vote Alliance.
Tain Bo
ReplyDeleteNope, just revert back to SF like in other elections. Labour v Tory FF v FG Democrats v Republicans Yellow Shirts v Red shirts it's where it always ends up.
Global tweedle dee tweedle dum. It's what passes for democracy.
Suppose it is a cop-out as a result of fatigue/boredom and an acceptance of reality.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteagain you make a better argument for militant republicanism by dead ending any thought of attempting to make inroads on a political path.
Democracy might not be to your suiting but the alternatives to what passes for democracy are hardly worth entertaining.
Fatigue and boredom and accepting reality seems an odd defense as you comment on political issues why add to your tiredness and boredom hardly in keeping with reality.
Rather than ask people to vote SDLP on the grounds that a few might makes no sense.
It would be less bother to vote at all and considering the issue is on dissenters it would be in the interest of people who wish to vote to have a choice of someone who represents their views.
It is something that is seriously lacking in socially deprived areas and to date a failure of Dissenters to take advantage of.
I am unsure how you calculate your long range prediction of defeatist failure when nothing has actually got off the ground.
The important element would be to get a voice out there whether it comes from independents or from a party or hopefully with enough agreement a more modern unified party.
Obviously there is a great deal wrong with Stormont but just to sit back and accept it is like handing over your mind and your reward will be more football which is significantly more important than unemployment a failing health care “crisis” and a growing police state.
Without political representation for dissenters who can blame people for agreeing with a continued armed struggle after all it may not be much but it passes as doing something.
Isn’t that the same logic you hide behind about what passes for democracy
But Larry even if it is an acceptance of reality it's important that those with a revolutionary impetus continue to organise if for no other reason than this is the only thing that keeps pressure on the system to prevent it backsliding and indeed to encourage further change. We should never just give up as you suggest, that really would be a recipe for disaster. Our strategic goals may appear a long way off, they may never be achieved, but by walking away we leave the political arena uncontested to the benefit of the forces of reaction and that is especially dangerous at this time when you look at the situation regarding the curbing of civil rights not only just in Ireland but across the international system. Social change has only ever come about as a result of pressure wrought from struggles from below - sometimes this developed a revolutionary dynamic to bring about a systematic overhaul, mostly it just forced concessions from an otherwise resistant state apparatus. To that end it's important that we keep organising and building the option of a credible alternative, if the people are ever ready for it we are ready to step into the breach. If they never come round to our analysis then at least our efforts are a barrier to those who would sell us down the river completely
ReplyDeleteTain Bo and Sean
ReplyDeleteRevolutions have had their day. When the 'people' feel aggrieved enough they act. As witnessed in such situations as the Pol-Tax and now the bedroom tax which will not get off the ground. Also as witnessed in the lack of mobilization on the 'fleg' issue from the loyalist side. People are not buying it any more, and you cant brow beat them into your plans. They mobilise when they feel sufficiently threatened on issues that matter to them. The Free State have had 90+ years of independence and ape London in just about everything they do in the 26 counties and have not invented anything radically different from the rest of the planet, why do anti-treaty republicans expect to do any better? What is the great plan?
If you want to put pressure on Stormont get Sean McGirr and his revolutionaries to picket the SF/SDLP offices as they are doing with the legal-high shops. The elected reps are already in place why not apply pressure there from the bottom-up? It makes more sense than to 'build' for another futile conflict and a new generation of FF WP SF type 'leaders'. Don't tell me that's NOT what we'll get, of course it is.
The system wont change in any dramatic meaningful way. It took centuries of trial and error to reach where we are and the Socialist revolutionary rhetoric is as big a turn off as toryism.
The Berlin Wall came down from the Communist side if I remember correctly. And Mandela ended up with a toothless political roll and a £2,500,000 personal estate after 30yrs in jail. 9conservative estimate I suggest). Pity Bobby Sands and Co. can't say the same in my book. It's what it is.
With about 20 yrs left on this planet (all being well) I'm not throwing it at a futile out dated political merry-go-round. But I think not voting is a nihilistic agenda which is very much in tune with the re-run mentality of those pursuing the same old republican 'tactic' and if the hat fits as they say...
Vote SDLP. It's where Marty and Gerry wanted to be all along and it's where republicans will end up again; hopefully when I'm long gone so I don't have to witness it.
As has been said on here on numerous occasions, I too think that Republican armed actions should stop. I remember a piece by Gerard Hodgins on here (I think) where he said that a lot of the people he saw, that are involved in "dissident" groups, he wouldn't give them the time of day. That seems to be the feeling in a lot of areas of Belfast. People who were of the age to join up, or help out, when the "conflict" "war" or whatever you want to call it was on, didn't, but they now try to portray themselves as super Republicans. From what I've seen (and I totally concur with Gerard Hodgins) these same said people are drug dealers and criminals and they wonder why they've no support. Having said that, I really feel sorry for genuine people who joined these organisations thinking they were fighting to free Ireland and are going to spend a hefty part of their young lives languishing in a prison cell. As for voting for the SDLP, not in a million years!
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeletethe idea of building a new party is not based in radical revolution nor would it be inviting conflict.
Quite the opposite it would be to move away from physical force and there is no need to explain the failure of physical force.
I doubt outside of the fractional circles of physical force there is any notion of UI.
That does not mean dissenters should not get involved in politics.
The vote for the SDLP just to spite SF makes no sense the SDLP like any other party need to earn their vote.
The same would apply to any new party or independents I personally don’t see why this political void should not be filled.
There is definitely a need for political opposition to SF it is not an overnight issue and I doubt anyone is under the illusion it would make a great change to the status quo.
An important change it could make is the shift away from the gun and make inroads to dealing with local issues by putting an emphasis back into working class politics.
Certainly it might sound like the same old story but it is better than doing nothing we can sit back and wait on the United States of Europe but even then we will or future generations will have to deal with the politics.
The alternative to not entering the political arena only encourages the militants.
Is it not possible or even a viable idea for people who left SF to rejoin and have 'coup d'etat' of sorts. And take the party back to where it was...?
ReplyDeleteFrankie
ReplyDeletewhere was it? A nonentity mouthpiece for the IRA which developed aspirations to use the IRA to rob the SDLP of it's clothes.
Belfastgit
ach gwon! vote STOOPS
Tain Bo
what political void are you seeing?
Táin Bó
ReplyDeleteI like you TB have no great grá nor meas for either the personalities nor the policies of the SDLP. I like you and Sean Bres believe anti-treaty republicans ought organise in defence of the Republic.
Developing a strategy for going forward and the tactic of voting SDLP in the short term are not to my mind mutually exclusive.
Having caught bits and pieces of the Provisionals' gathering in Wexford on TV over the weekend I believe that anyone who doesn't recognise that they are still on the ascent on the island are deceiving themselves. I am of the opinion that they a potent force and will achieve further and not insignificant inroads in the 26 counties in the upcoming local and European elections. Where will that leave anti-treaty republicans?
I contend it will leave them further marginalised and less likely to be heard or heeded.
To counter that I think it beholds us to give careful attention to thwarting them to whatever minimal extent we can, to give careful thought to our tactical options.
Some commentators suggest the Provisionals have plateaued in the six counties and I believe that to be near enough. As you well know Táin Bó some seats on local councils can be decided by a handful of votes and because of the proportional representation system we can manage our preferences to influence outcomes to a significant degree.
To that end I am of the opinion it could be tactically useful for those who claim to wish to develop an alternative strategy going forward to act decisively, to act courageously, to act now in identifying the Provisionals' vulnerable seats and educating their supporters and comrades in the nuances of the PR system of voting. There is no reason that this can't be done quietly and stealth-fully, yet with significant impact.
Such actions could bear fruit. That some republicans will find advocating voting for the SDLP churlish of that I have no doubt but from a place in the future it could be viewed as 'the finger in the dyke' that prevented the final deluge.
There's not much more to loose; is there?
Was gonna stay out of this but listening to that spiel I have to say what a load of pure and utter crap. I kind of expect it from Larry knowing that he's most likely on the wind but as for you Henry Joy, or whoever the hell you are, your politics are all over the shop. Your comments at this stage are bordering on the outright ridiculous
ReplyDeleteHenry Joy
ReplyDeleteVery pragmatic, insightful and refreshing. Someone has discarded the 100 year old straight jacket and at least contemplated the possibility that this is indeed 2014.
Bravo!!
Sean Bres
ReplyDeleteon the 'wind'? ME??
I too will be having you for libel lol
Haha Lar did ye see that! What a bollocks, some like to give plenty of stick but can't take it in return. A Stickie through and through, but sometimes they forget where it is they came from themselves
ReplyDeleteSean Bres
ReplyDeleteYes I saw it, cringeworthy. But then some of these people like many SF people today, were possibly never in the OIRA either. So they have no memory or experience to draw on. Not guilty by technicality lol.
WP never had a military wing and Adams was never in the 'RA! Carry-On IRA movies R-US.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThis is my take. I've been reading the threads and posts about how SF, like Tommy Johnson, sold their soul to the devil. And people have two choices..either vote anybody but SF to give them a kick in the balls or simply don't vote at all. But going over the same ground, arguments isn't advancing anything. It shouldn't be to difficult to have a pan republican front and have pacts with other republican groups.
Frankie
ReplyDeletethe piss-process left many almost skitzo. There's a lot of logic in what SF are doing at this stage politically. But the leadership of that party is filthy rotten this decades and their self-serving antics were not worth a second of anyone's time let alone blind loyalty.
Voting for anyone but SF just sums it up. Unfortunately I feel those seeking a republican alternative at this time are providing SF with a bogey-man and preventing the SDLP vote they've borrowed from feeling able to revert back again.
Larry.
ReplyDelete“what political void are you seeing?”
Definitely not the SDLP void that you suggest should be propped up.
Henry JoY,
ReplyDeleteI have no love for the political roundabout north nor south the greater the silence the louder SF become metaphorically slowly but effectively drowning out any hope or chance of a concrete republican opposition to their sit back and wait politics.
I caught as much of the SF Ard Fheis as I could and though my political views do not align with theirs I would impress upon others how well oganised they are and completely agree with your assessment that they are on the ascent.
A simple explanation could easily narrow their rise and success as a mainstream party.
The fact that dissenters were too involved in continuing with armed action practically has backfired it would appear the political groups are as fractured as the militant groups all claiming this is the way forward.
Not to infer suspicion but it is difficult to accept divisions exist at such a high level it might be noticeable of saboteurs at work and to a lesser extent that old unavoidable clash of personalities which has always proven a dead end we may as well apply no new thought required.
The laughable notion that voting for the SDLP dissenters may as well hang a sign around our necks and proclaim we have nothing to offer the unrepresented but a proxy vote against SF.
Not only is it foolish and defeatist it spells out in an unmistakable voice that dissenters should pack it in.
Militant republicanism needs a serious look at itself as all it does is push itself further into the margin it has become successful in turning people away from dissenter politics as they like everyone else understands that militancy cannot attain a military victory over the British.
The time, money, and energy spent by these groups would be better diverted into a serious political opposition to SF.
SF didn’t appear strong and confident by accident they have become strong and will continue to do so.
There are a lot of decent people within the ranks the only problem is they are unfortunately followers of leaders for life.
Is it enough for dissenters to keep repeating sellouts the rhetoric is not what is needed.
Dissident republicanism can’t afford to lose people to English jails the only way forward is to stop thinking about what has been conceded and start thinking about what dissenter unity can accomplish building a political party should be priority.
If we continue to remain voiceless then we might as well admit that we are our own worst enemy.
I would disagree that voting SDLP could bear any fruit, all that is stating is we are simply incapable of uniting dissenters the short term and long term objectivity of such would not make a dent in SF and would make dissenters the laughing stock of weakness in motion.
Táin Bó
ReplyDeleteIt is never wise to let your enemy dictate the terms of engagement. It is not an effective strategy to leave your activists inactive for too long, it only leads to further inertia and passivity becomes the norm.
Unusual and unexpected tactics are more often than not the most effective. In that light I restate my call for anti-treaty republicans to identify the Provisionals' vulnerable seats and co-ordinate voting strategies among their own followers to make a dent in the relentless advance of the PSF collaborators. If that means giving a first or second preference to the SDLP then so be it.
Such tactics will bear fruit and in bearing fruit affirm agency and sustain morale among activists and anti-treaty supporters.
What in essence is your immediate tactic save either staying at home or going out and 'plumping'?
And what does that do save leaving things as they are? And what is the consequence of leaving things as they are?
What you advocate is not laughable Táin Bó, it's pathetic.
Henry JoY
ReplyDeleteI don’t see how voting for one nodding head party to spite the other makes any sense.
The people you are asking to vote SDLP don’t exactly have a long healthy relationship with that party and are unlikely to vote either SF or SDLP.
It is not an effective strategy as all it does is say dissenters are not capable of putting a party together so in lieu of that we should prop up a party that does not represent the needs of dissenters.
It may be pathetic but it still sounds more reasonable to put energy into building an alternative.
Táin Bó of course in an ideal situation it's more desirable and more positive to put energy into an alternative but nearly twenty years on from yet another treaty of surrender where's the evidence of anything substantial, anything with any realistic hope of success evolving out of the fragmented and direction-less muddle of what is currently anti-treaty-ite republicanism?
ReplyDeleteWhere's the evidence that anything specific, measurable or meaningful in terms of outcomes for anti-treaty republicans can be achieved within the short time-frame between now and the declarations of results in the local government elections?
There's no evidence or very little so hence the recommendation of rearguard action by way of organising the vote to frustrate the Vichy-like Provisional collaborators.
Henry JoY,
ReplyDeleteI would agree yet there is little motivation for dissenters to vote let alone a substantial number to side with the SDLP.
Even if such a move got off the ground it would be setting a poor precedent and in the longer term could prove detrimental to dissenter politics.
If an alternative party where to arise there would be no guarantee the same tactics would not be employed to eliminate or weaken a lesser or secondary dissenter party.
There is no evidence there is only the fact that dissenters to date have been lacking in political motivation and existing on the peripheral of the lost conflict.
It was 12 years into the conflict when the vote for Bobby Sands (RIP) was a vote for the prisoners and not SF but unfortunately that would change with the continuation vote for Own Carron.
SF then had what they wanted and went on to sell the Armalite and Ballot box agenda.
The strategy worked not because SF were/are great politicians but they had a package that could be easily sold to the people who naturally had become tired of the attrition and 29 years later the deal was struck.
14 years on the peace process is the only part of their hype that they still push the minor part of a UI had been relegated to history?
Dirty politics but also a missed opportunity by dissidents to provide a counter opposition party which only leaves traditional republicans the choice of voting SF or not voting it is not something we can blame the Brits or SF on.
I don’t see the long term effects for as you put it rearguard action. I might be wrong but would still view the necessity to motivate dissenters to form a party that can lead its own challenge to SF.
The way I see that is a vote for the SDLP is no different than a vote for SF.
Táin Bó
ReplyDeleteTo view dissenters forming a party at some time in the future and giving a preference vote to SDLP in the immediacy of the forthcoming local elections as being mutually exclusive is somewhat myopic.
Neither Bobby Sands nor Owen Carron could have been elected in Fermanagh/South Tyrone had there not been a long trodden tradition of republican background involvement in electioneering in that constituency. Bangers Morrison and his mates arrived late in the day to recognise the tactic of a weapon in one hand and a ballot paper in the other!
Republican activists had been to the fore in minimising the influence and growth of the SDLP in the constituency. They ensured the candidature of Frank McManus brother of the late Vol. Patrick McManus who died in action at Swanlinbar, Co Cavan during Operation Harvest.
They subsequently ensured the candidature of Frank Maguire ( O.C. Crumlin Road internees for a brief time towards the end of Operation Harvest) too. In securing their candidature republicans successfully out manoeuvred the SDLP's Austin Curry on both occasions (that was before he took the huff and found his natural political home in Fine Gael). They also played significant roles in getting those candidates elected.
Of course it could be argued that many of those that worked in those campaigns went on to work on behalf of the likes of Michelle Gildernew too. That some of them championed the development and success of Provisional Sinn Féin in the constituency is true.
However the salient point is that a political machine existed without the formal structure of a political party. People had views of what they were for and, just as importantly, had strong views of what they were against.
In a loose alliance and in an 'ad hoc' way they were able to successfully give political expression to those views.
In advocating a vote for SDLP, where no other worthy community activist is on the ballot paper and where such a candidate exists to continue preferences for SDLP candidates, is nothing more than an extension of such tactics utilised to good effect in Fermanagh/South Tyrone and in other regions too.
Henry JoY,
ReplyDeletewith absence of dissenter politics I can understand the motivation for the interim push for a vote for the SDLP.
This might appeal to many or too few and how one decides to use their vote is their own business.
I could be wrong though I don’t see the interest in playing what essentially becomes seesaw politics.
It could prove effective if it was well organised (even though I would still remain opposed) and not just a notion of how to hit back at SF temporarily.
It is one of those weapons that can be turned on dissenters politics as SF are better organised and have the support network to disrupt any running dissenters or independents.
Obviously we are not going to find common agreement on the issue. I still believe time and energy should focus on improving the dissident political position.
I would still view a vote for the SDLP as a vote for SF that is just my opinion others might split hairs and believe there is a substantial difference in the parties but both play the working class card and still cater to the middle and upper class.
Priority should be in rebuilding dissenter politics from the ground up. It is the long road though that should not be an obstacle as traditional republicanism still exists albeit fractured but not to the point of beyond repair.
I don’t see any alternative and in a sense we fall into the pit where we are in a constant state of thought over SF granted it is important to monitor what they are or not doing but it would make more sense to focus on dissension politics through education finding solutions and promoting political ideas that can work in favour.
The militant school of thought is outdated and in essence it is defeating itself and promoting a silent agenda that only props up the very elements they claim to be fighting.
This in turn has the effect of pushing away dissenter’s who would prefer a political approach and given some of the terms attached to militants from within the dissenter camp such as corrupt, criminal, and rogue gangs acting as thugs it would be difficult to dismiss these labels.
Naturally it is up to the interested individuals to decide if there is any fact behind the labels.
One fact that is not in dispute is that militancy is hampering any serious attempt at making political headway and in that sense it leaves dissenters no real choice when it comes to the ballot box.
It might sound outlandish but for some in the dissident camp voting for SF or the SDLP is not out of the question rather than spoil their vote there is a sense that voting for a non-unionist party is better than doing nothing.
Can the dissident camp argue against that possibility, no, as there is little on offer.
It becomes essential that eventually a political party is the direction to go,
Rather than putting effort into scuttling SF the dissenter camp needs to restore some pride and build a party that can challenge the status quo.
Politically we have nothing to lose and even if we don’t find agreement we are on a minor scale trading ideas and thoughts.
The fact that we might not even meet in the middle on issues is just as important as if we do.
It would be a great mistake if we all became nodding heads to me it is a healthy productive way forward challenging one and other to come up with something we can accept and find a common connection on the way forward.
I have to say one of the best articles and subsequent discussions that I have read in a while. There has been much deliberation both within and between various Republican groups on our possible political direction.
ReplyDeleteLooking through our history I think we have been blighted by a form of tunnel vision regarding the path we must take i.e. 'our way or the highway' approach. Of course , this is essential during the formative years of any political party but such rigidity can become a burden down the line given the fluidity of the political landscape. More importantly however, is that with every political system, despite our best intentions the more we involve ourselves in a political system to try and effect change from within the more & more of it we have to accept and before we realise it we have in fact become part and parcel of that very system we set to change...PSF are living proof of this!!
Since the last election we are witnessing an increasing of 'independent' candidates putting themselves forward this time around. This in itself is a sign of how we are politically maturing and becoming more adept at formulating our own political ideals and believing in ourselves.
However, there is also a flip side to this new found self-empowerment;
(1) If such candidacies are born purely out of an anti-PSF agenda then I feel they may well be short lived since people the world over are fed up of political squabbling and infighting; there is a global desire for CHANGE!!
(2) How effective can individual 'independents'be in effecting real change local and nationally?? If they become successfully elected will the inevtable time not come when they will have to align themselves with PSF on the important social issues and by doing so unwittingly become morhed back into the PSF machine in time??
(3) Will a plethora of independent councillors ONLY serve to splinter and hence weaken the minority republican/nationalist political base in the O6C???
These are just a few areas that need careful consideration if working class areas are NOT to be seen to be simply knee-jerking in their quest for socio-economic CHANGE...